Family List (MO) |
Family List (INBio) | Cutting Edge
Draft Treatments |
Guidelines | Checklist | Citing | Editors
The Cutting Edge Volume VI, Number 1, January 1999
News and Notes | Recent Treatments | Leaps and Bounds | German Literature
The Angiosperm Phylogeny Group. 1998.
An ordinal classification for the families of flowering plants. Ann. Missouri
Bot. Gard. 85: 531--553.
This ballyhooed contribution, expanding on the pioneering work of Kåre
Bremer (UPS) and associates, is an early attempt at a higher classification
of flowering plants based largely on molecular phylogenetic analyses. The
"primary focus is on orders with a secondary emphasis on families."
No attempt was made "to thoroughly revise family circumscriptions";
instead, recent authors were generally followed. Thus, this paper presumably
embodies a convenient summary of family concepts that have recently gained
currency within the phylogenetic community. While ordinal classification
is beyond the scope of this newsletter, we are always much interested in
keeping abreast of familial classification. Apparently we have not done
such a great job, though, because there are some big surprises for us.
Austin, D. F. 1998. Xixicamátic or wood rose (Merremia
tuberosa, Convolvulaceae): origins and dispersal. Econ. Bot. 52: 412--422.
The general tendency here is toward lumping mono- and oligotypic families
when possible, but some are kept distinct, including: Agapanthaceae (from
Alliaceae and Amaryllidaceae), Avicenniaceae (from Lamiaceae and Verbenaceae),
Buddlejaceae and Plocospermataceae (both from Loganiaceae), Celtidaceae
(from Ulmaceae), Cochlospermaceae (from Bixaceae), Escalloniaceae and Phyllonomaceae
(both from Grossulariaceae), Hydroleaceae (from Hydrophyllaceae/Boraginaceae),
Lacistemataceae (from Flacourtiaceae), Limnocharitaceae (from Alismataceae),
Memecylaceae (from Melastomataceae), Metteniusaceae (from Icacinaceae),
Muntingiaceae (from Elaeocarpaceae and Tiliaceae), Pellicieraceae and Ternstroemiaceae
(both from Theaceae), Picramniaceae (from Simaroubaceae), Schlegeliaceae
(from Bignoniaceae and Scrophulariaceae), Simmondsiaceae (from Buxaceae),
Siparunaceae (from Monimiaceae), Sphenocleaceae (from Campanulaceae), Stegnospermataceae
(from Phytolaccaceae), Thismiaceae (from Burmanniaceae), Tovariaceae (from
Capparidaceae/Brassicaceae), and Tristichaceae (from Podostemaceae).
surprises are perhaps found among the families that have been submerged,
including: Bombacaceae, Sterculiaceae, and Tiliaceae (all into Malvaceae),
Brunelliaceae (into Cunoniaceae), Cabombaceae (into Nymphaeaceae), Callitrichaceae
(into Plantaginaceae!), Capparidaceae (or is it Capparaceae?; into Brassicaceae),
Chenopodiaceae (into Amaranthaceae), Desfontainiaceae (from Loganiaceae
into the formerly monogeneric Columelliaceae), Dracaenaceae (into Convallariaceae),
Eremolepidaceae and Viscaceae (both into Santalaceae), Hippocastanaceae
(into Sapindaceae), Hippocrateaceae (into Celastraceae), Hydrocotylaceae
(from Apiaceae into Araliaceae), Hydrophyllaceae (into Boraginaceae), Lemnaceae
(into Araceae), Lomandraceae (including Cordyline, into Laxmanniaceae),
Najadaceae (into Hydrocharitaceae), Phormiaceae (into Hemerocallidaceae),
Potaliaceae (from Loganiaceae into Gentianaceae), Punicaceae (into Lythraceae),
Rhinanthaceae (from Scrophulariaceae into Orobanchaceae), Sambucaceae and
Viburnaceae (both from Caprifoliaceae into Adoxaceae), and Viticaceae (from
Verbenaceae into Lamiaceae).
All of this progess is well and good but, from the perspective of flora
writers, difficult to accommodate. First, the classification is still half-baked.
The authors discuss several examples of potentially non-monophyletic families
that cannot yet be resolved, including Boraginaceae, Euphorbiaceae, Flacourtiaceae,
Santalaceae, and Scrophulariaceae. Numerous families have still not been
assigned to any order, and 25 are of altogether uncertain position. These
last include Balanophoraceae, Elatinaceae, Lepidobotryaceae, and Metteniusaceae.
The position of these families, once known, could affect the classification
of other groups. Second, novel or non-traditional family concepts based
on molecular analyses may be (at least temporarily) refractory to conventional
treatment. Diagnostic morphological characters may be lacking or, at least,
unknown; as the authors point out, "synapomorphies...often include
(sometimes exclusively) anatomical, biochemical, and developmental characters,"
features that cannot usually not be employed in keys designed for field
identification. Comprehensive descriptions of these families may not exist,
and would then have to be cobbled together laboriously. Sometimes, even
the full generic composition may be unclear, in the case of families circumscribed
on the basis of studies involving only certain, "representative"
genera. This paper provides few direct clues as to the generic composition
of families; indeed, in a few cases (e.g., Lamiaceae, Verbenaceae) wholesale
changes in composition are virtually undetectable.
Clearly, this is the first wave in a sea change that will eventually produce
a robust new classification that can be embraced (at least in its broad
strokes) by the entire botanical community. However, in order for such
a classification to be accepted and implemented by flora writers, it must
be fully realized and presented in book form, à la Cronquist, rigorously
defended and documented, with reworked ordinal and familial descriptions
and exhaustive cross-referencing down to the generic level. The authors
of this work are to be commended, we feel, for retaining Linnaean categories,
and for an honest, sensible, and explicit discussion of their classificatory
criteria ("monophyly in combination with the desirability of maintaining
already well established and familiar entities," with a preference
to lump rather than split), which essentially coincide with our own.
The pantropical but widely introduced Merremia tuberosa (L.) Rendle
is believed to be native only in Mexico and Central America (including Costa
Rica), apparently corresponding to the range of the sp.-specific seed predator
Megacerus capreolus (Jakel) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). The worldwide
distribution of M. tuberosa is mapped on the basis of herbarium records.
A cladistic analysis suggests that the sister-taxon of M. tuberosa
is M. discoidesperma (Donn. Sm.) O'Donell, of southern Mexico and
Aymard C., G. 1998. Canavalia rosea (Sw.) DC. versus Canavalia
maritima (Aubl.) Thouars (Papilionoideae). Ernstia 8(1): 19--25.
This pantropical, littoral herb has long been known by both of the above
names, i.e., mainly as C. maritima, in the New World, and as C.
rosea, in the Old World. Pivotal to Aymard's argument is his realization
that Thouars's (1813) C. maritima, based on Asian material, was the
name of a new species, and not a transfer of Aublet's (1775) Dolichos
maritimus, based on a South American collection; the same epithet was
evidently chosen coincidentally. Because Thouars's name blocks any subsequent
transfer of Aublet's D. maritimus to Canavalia, C. rosea
(based on Dolichos roseus Sw., 1788) must prevail. This is apparently
old news by now, as the name Canavalia rosea is already used in The
plant-book and in the INBio/Manual database. Thanks to Jorge Gómez-Laurito
(USJ) for bringing this report to our attention.
Berg, C. C. 1998. 27B. Moraceae (excl. Ficus). In,
G. Harling & L. Andersson (eds.), Flora of Ecuador 60: 1--126.
Göteborg Univ., Sweden.
Here we learn that Batocarpus costaricensis Standl. & L. O. Williams,
which we had believed endemic to Costa Rica or at least southern Central
America, occurs disjunctly in the western Amazon basin from Ecuador to Bolivia.
Bock, I. 1995. Pleurothallis canaligera Rchb. f.--kleine
Kostbarkeit neu für Costa Rica. Orchidee (Hamburg) 46: 59--62.
A living plant in the author's collection, here depicted in color photographs,
was allegedly collected from cloud-forest at 1350 m elevation in the Cordillera
Central. No herbarium material is cited (and no reputable scientific journal
would have published this report). In German.
----. 1997. Maxillaria admonens Bock, eine neue Art aus Costa
Rica. Orchidee (Hamburg) 48: 105--107.
Maxillaria admonens I. Bock sp. nov. (Orchidaceae) is known only
by live material cultivated by the author and originally collected (supposedly)
at 1800 m elevation in the "Cerros de Tarbaca" by the late Clarence
Horich. It is compared with M. bracteata (Schltr.) Ames &
Correll and M. gomeziana J. T. Atwood. Features a composite line-drawing,
and color photos from life. A holotype was deposited at HAL, and no isotypes
were prepared. In German.
----. 1998. Ponthieva maculata Lindl. und Ponthieva brenesii
Schltr. kritisch betrachtet. Orchidee (Hamburg) 49: 2--6.
A comparison of quasi-vouchered living plants in the author's collection
leads to the conclusion that two spp. are involved here, though P. brenesii
has often been considered a synonym of P. maculata. Illustrated
with line-drawings and color photos from life. See Dressler's more authoritative
study (Bol. Inst. Bot. Univ. Guadalajara 5: 69--85. 1998), reported in
our last issue, which likewise supported the distinctness of P. brenesii.
Brummitt, R. K. 1998. Report of the Committee for Spermatophyta:
47. Taxon 47: 863--872.
Among the recommendations reported here are several pertinent to Costa Rican
floristics, but only those impacting the status quo will be mentioned here.
The most significant of these is (and the most surprising) is the near-unanimous
(1:11) non-recommendation of Bornstein's proposal [Taxon 45: 323--324.
1996; see also The
Cutting Edge 3(3): 4. Jul. 1996] to conserve the well-known
Trel. (Piperaceae) against the obscure Manekia Trel., published just
two months earlier. For once, the Committee comes down on the side of priority!
(Our Unsolicited View #1: this should be automatic, and there should be
no committee). Voting was influenced by a fear that "We could end
up with the rule of priority disregarded completely and replaced by endless
Committee decisions" (Our Unsolicited View #2: the mere possibility
of conservation condemns the Committee to exactly this fate). Some other
results: Inga marginata Willd. (Fabaceae: Mimosoideae), an illegitimate
synonym of I. fagifolia (L.) Willd. long used for a different sp.,
is conserved unanimously with a new type that maintains historical usage
[N.B.: the name Inga semialata (Vell.) Mart., briefly resurrected
by specialist Mario Sousa (MEXU) to replace I. marginata,
returns to oblivion]. Rejected unanimously are Inga juglandifolia
Willd. and I. pisana G. Don, which had threatened the later I.
nobilis Willd. and I. oerstediana Benth., respectively. Less
definitive is the 8:4 recommendation to conserve Lagenophora Cass.
(Asteraceae) over the original Lagenifera Cass., a proposal "made
in the hope of resolving the matter finally" (a similar proposal had
failed in 1966). (Our Unsolicited View #3: because unlimited appeals are
apparently permitted, there is no hope of "finally" resolving
any of these matters. Concerned parties have unlimited time to prepare
their proposals. Rulings should be final.)
Columbus, J. T., M. S. Kinney, R. Pant & M. E. Siqueiros Delgado.
1998. Cladistic parsimony analysis of internal transcribed spacer region
(nrDNA) sequences of Bouteloua and relatives (Gramineae: Chloridoideae).
Aliso 17: 99--130.
In addition to Bouteloua, the analysis included Aegopogon
and Pentarrhaphis (to mention only those genera occurring in Costa
Rica). Neither Bouteloua s.l. nor either of its two subgenera, Bouteloua
and Chondrosium (Desv.) Gould, emerged as monophyletic in this study.
Although no new circumsciptions are formally proposed, the authors suggest
tentative acceptance of Bouteloua in the broad sense (to include
Chondrosum), with no subgenera, pending further investigation. Incidentally,
monophyly of Aegopogon, though never seriously questioned, was strongly
Delgado-Salinas, A. 1998. A new combination and a new synonym in
Vigna (Fabaceae: Phaseoleae) for the Flora de Nicaragua.
Novon 8: 352--353.
The combination Vigna spectabilis (Standl.) A. Delgado, based on
Phaseolus spectabilis Standl., is validated for a sp. widespread
from southern Mexico to Costa Rica. The name Phaseolus stenolobus
Standl. is placed in synonymy under Vigna linearis (Kunth) Maréchal,
Mascherpa & Stainier var. latifolia (Benth.) Maréchal,
Mascherpa & Stainier, which occurs throughout Mesoamerica and "occasionally"
in South America.
Dressler, R. L. 1998. The neotypification of Cattleya deckeri.
Lindleyana 13: 219--220.
The name Cattleya deckeri Klotzsch (Orchidaceae), though much applied
to a sp. ranging from Costa Rica through northern South America to Trinidad,
was based on a collection from Mexico or Guatemala. Here, C. deckeri
is neotypified on a collection corresponding to Cattleya xguatemalensis
T. Moore, a naturally occurring hybrid swarm ranging from Chiapas to El
Salvador. The correct name for the more southern sp. is Cattleya patinii
Hauk, W. D. 1998. A review of the genus Paragonia (Bignoniaceae).
Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 85: 460--474.
This ditypic, neotropical genus consists of the little-known, Brazilian
Paragonia brasiliensis (Baill.) A. H. Gentry and the familiar, widespread
P. pyramidata (Rich.) Bureau. The latter occurs in Costa Rica, consistent
with previous knowledge, but the author's recognition (contrary to the late
Al Gentry) of a South American var. tomentosa Bureau &
K. Schum. restricts our material to the autonymic var. Features key to
and tabular comparison of spp., lengthy descriptions, specimen citations,
distribution map, line drawing of P. pyramidata var. pyramidata,
graphical presentation of phenological data, list of nomina nuda, and indices
to exsiccatae and scientific names.
Kallunki, J. A. 1998. Revision of Ticorea Aubl. (Rutaceae,
Galipeinae). Brittonia 50: 500--513.
Well, we had thought this was germane, but it turns out not to be. This
genus of five spp. is now strictly South American, recircumscribed in such
a way as to exclude our beloved Ticorea unifoliolata T. S. Elias.
We learn under "Excluded Names" that T. unifoliolata is
now to be regarded as a synonym of Conchocarpus guyanensis (Pulle)
Kallunki & Pirani (Kew Bull. 53: 500. 1998), published in a truly germane
article that we have not yet seen (check this column in our next issue).
Kim, Y.-D. & R. K. Jansen. 1998. Chloroplast DNA restriction
site variation and phylogeny of the Berberidaceae. Amer. J. Bot. 85: 1766--1778.
This study is inconclusive with respect to the only issue of interest to
us, viz., whether to treat Mahonia separately or as a synonym of
Berberis. Although the published cladogram portrays Berberis
as nested within a paraphyletic Mahonia, the authors assert that
"more extensive sampling of both genera is needed to resolve generic
Luer, C. A. 1998. Systematics of Pleurothallis sections Abortivae,
Truncatae and Pleurothallis subsections Acroniae and
Amphygiae [sic] (Orchidaceae). Pp. 1--64 in, C. A. Luer,
Icones pleurothallidinarum XVII. Monogr. Syst. Bot. Missouri Bot. Gard.
According to the author's classification, Pleurothallis consists
of no fewer than 29 subgenera. The three sections dealt with here make
up Pleurothallis subgen. Pleurothallis, which (judging from
this incomplete treatment) appears centered in Andean South America. The
monotypic sects. Abortivae and Truncatae do not reach Central
America. Section Pleurothallis comprises six subsections, just two
of which, subsect. Acroniae and subsect. Pleurothallis, are
treated here. The remaining four subsections are promised for later, although
two of their names are here newly published. Subsection Acroniae
includes 46 spp. apportioned in two series: ser. Acroniae, with
21 spp., and ser. Amphygiae (or is it Amphigyae?), with 25
spp. Only the former is represented in Costa Rica, by six spp., of which
two (Pleurothallis dentipetala Rolfe ex Ames and P. imitor
Luer) are endemic. Subsection Pleurothallis includes just 12 spp.,
with only the widespread P. ruscifolia (Jacq.) R. Br. (the generic
type) definitely recorded from Costa Rica. Seven new spp. are described
in this paper, though none from Costa Rica. The title of the paper is puzzling
and appears to incorporate at least one outright error: "Amphygiae"
should be replaced by "Pleurothallis" (unless we are more
confused than we realize). Includes a key to all the sections and subsections
series of subgen. Pleurothallis, plus separate keys to the spp. of
subsects. Acroniae and Pleurothallis. This and the following
two contributions feature detailed sp. descriptions, citations of exsiccatae,
line drawings of all spp., and indices to scientific names.
----. 1998. Systematics of Pleurothallis subgenus Dracontia
(Orchidaceae). Pp. 65--85 in, C. A. Luer, Icones pleurothallidinarum
XVII. Monogr. Syst. Bot. Missouri Bot. Gard. 72: 1--121.
Unlike Pleurothallis subgen. Pleurothallis (see above), subgenera
Dracontia and Unciferia (see below) are heavily represented,
if not centered, in southern Central America. The 18 spp. of subgen. Dracontia
are here newly classed in three sections: Dracontia (15 spp.), Brobdingnagia
Luer (2 spp.), and Cylindria Luer (1 sp.). Although the sections
are keyed, the sp. treatments are mixed in strict alphabetical order. Of
the 13 spp. here attributed to Costa Rica, eight are endemic: Pleurothallis
conochila Luer, P. dracontea Luer, P. grandis Rolfe, P.
ingramii Luer, P. papillifera Rolfe, P. perennis Luer,
P. ramonensis Schltr., and P. tintinnabula Luer. An additional
(14th) sp., P. carnosilabia A. H. Heller & A. D. Hawkes, is vouchered
in the Manual data-base. Our spp. all belong to sect. Dracontia,
except for P. grandis and P. powellii Schltr. (sect. Brobdingnagia)
and P. macrantha L. O. Williams (sect. Cylindria). No new
spp. are described herein.
----. 1998. Systematics of Pleurothallis subgenus Unciferia
(Orchidaceae). Pp. 87--121 in, C. A. Luer, Icones pleurothallidinarum
XVII. Monogr. Syst. Bot. Missouri Bot. Gard. 72: 1--121.
This taxon, formerly a section of Pleurothallis subgen. Specklinia,
here achieves subgeneric rank for the first time. The total of 10 spp.
includes seven represented in Costa Rica. Four of the latter are believed
endemic: Pleurothallis bifalcis Schltr., P. kareniae Luer,
P. pilostoma Luer, and P. psilantha Luer (the last here described
Maquet, A. & J.-P. Baudoin. 1997. Aperçu de la distribution
néotropicale de Phaseolus lunatus. Belgian J. Bot. 130: 93--116.
A survey of the New World distribution of Phaseolus lunatus L. (Fabaceae:
Papilionoideae), based primarily on literature records. Two "gene
pools" are recognized, the Andean and the more widepread Mesoamerican,
as well as three "botanical forms": wild, weedy, and cultivated
(i.e., the Lima bean of commerce). Both wild and cultivated forms of the
Mesoamerican type are represented in Costa Rica, along with a weedy form
of unknown type. The wild form occurs only on the Pacific slope, at 100--1800
m elevation. The habitat is described as clearings in dense evergreen and
deciduous forest, with average annual rainfall of 1400--3000 mm. Maps
depict the distribution of P. lunatus throughout the Neotropics,
and details of the distribution within each country are provided in a tabular
Morrone, O., F. O. Zuloaga, M. O. Arriaga, R. Pozner & S. S. Aliscioni.
1998. Revisión sistemática y análisis cladístico
del género Chaetium (Poaceae: Panicoideae: Paniceae). Ann.
Missouri Bot. Gard. 85: 404--424.
The cladistic analysis, using morphological and anatomical characters, affirms
this small neotropical genus as monophyletic. One of the three spp. is
Cuban, another is Mesoamerican, and the third is restricted to northern
South America. As per all recent floristic treatments, only Chaetium
bromoides (J. Presl) Benth. ex Hemsl. is represented in Costa
Rica. Includes a cladogram and data matrix, light and SEM micrographs of
anatomical and micromorphological features, distribution map, key to spp.
and tabular presentation of anatomical differences, full descriptions, representative
specimen citations, excellent line drawings, and index to exsiccatae.
Muasya, A. M., D. A. Simpson, M. W. Chase & A. Culham. 1998.
An assessment of suprageneric phylogeny in Cyperaceae using rbcL
DNA sequences. Pl. Syst. Evol. 211: 257--271.
The cladistic analysis "supports [a] broader circumscription of Cyperus,"
i.e., to include at least Kyllinga and Pycreus, and perhaps
even Oxycaryum (Torulinium is nowhere mentioned). Little
light is shed on the classification of tribe Scirpeae.
Nelson Sutherland, C. H. & F. J. Fernández Casas. 1998.
De flora hondurensi notulæ, præcipue nomenclaturales. II.
Fontqueria 52: 1--3.
This paper exists for the sole purpose of informing us that the correct
author citation for Echinodorus tenellus (Alismataceae) should be
"(Schult. f. ex Schult. & Schult. f.) Buchenau," as
opposed to "(Schult. f. ex Mart.) Buchenau," while that
for Nectandra cuspidata (Lauraceae) should be "Nees & Mart.,"
instead of "Nees" alone. The evidence presented seems to support
these interpretations. For the record, Garrett Crow's Manual contribution
treats E. tenellus as a synonym of E. bolivianus (Rusby) Holm-Nielsen.
Paclt, J. 1998. (1378) Proposal to conserve the name Celastrus
(Celastraceae) as being of feminine gender. Taxon 47: 879--880.
As in the case of Euonymus [see The
Cutting Edge 5(4): 7, Oct. 1998], Celastrus is a classically
feminine name that was treated as masculine by Linnaeus, and variously by
subsequent authors. The author of the proposal notes that "Botanical
tradition...has not yet entirely re-established the classical feminine gender"
of Celastrus, which thus seems to fall between the cracks of Art.
62.1 (indecisive even by the standards of the Code). The author closes
with the disturbing observation that "Rejecting [the present proposal]...cannot
prevent continued use of feminine by classically oriented botanists."
He avoids mention of the obvious corollary, that recommendation of the
proposal cannot prevent continued use of masculine gender by other botanists
so inclined. After all, there is not yet a nomenclatural Gestapo! And
even if there were, "recommendations" can be appealed and overturned,
years down the road and (apparently) time and time again (see under Brummitt,
above). So, what are these proposals all about? Is this the road to nomenclatural
stability? [Our Unsolicited View #4: tighten up the Code so that it takes
an clear and firm stand on every conceivable issue; forget these ad hoc
proposals, and do away with endless committee decisions that foster (rather
than avert) nomenclatural chaos. Make these decisions simple, automatic,
and final, easily implemented by any monographer or flora writer. Power
to the people! Priority über alles! Conservation is Pandora's Box.
To paraphrase an ancient Turkish proverb (in translation): "No matter
how far you have gone down the wrong path, turn back!"]
Pipoly, J. J., III & J. M. Ricketson. 1998. A revision of the
genus Ardisia subgenus Graphardisia (Myrsinaceae). Sida 18:
This group of three spp. and five subspp. ranges from Nicaragua to Bolivia
and Brazil. Three new combinations are here validated, four names are lectotypified,
and 21 names are newly synonymized. Ardisia subgen. Graphardisia
is contrasted with A. subgen. Icacorea, to which it is believed
most closely related. The only sp. of A. subgen. Graphardisia
occurring in Costa Rica is the widespread and familiar Ardisia opegrapha
Oerst., represented by three subspp.: subsp. opegrapha,of the Pacific
slope, subsp. wagneri (Mez) Pipoly & Ricketson, of the Atlantic
slope, and the endemic subsp. paquitensis (Lundell) Pipoly &
Ricketson, mainly of the Pacific slope. Features an emended subgeneric
description, a key to spp. and subspp., complete synonymy and typology,
comprehensive specimen citations, detailed line drawings of all taxa, and
an index to exsiccatae.
---- & ----. 1998. New names and combinations in neotropical
Myrsinaceae. Sida 18: 503--517.
Inspired, apparently, by Morales's recent paper [Phytologia 83: 109--112.
1998 ('1997'); see The
Cutting Edge 5(4): 7, Oct. 1998], the authors here validate necessary
new combinations and names previously published invalidly, according to
Art. 34.1 of the Code, by Lundell (Phytologia 48: 137--142. 1981; Phytologia
61: 62--68. 1986). They also effect five new combinations in Ardisia
for Lundell names never transferred from Icacorea. Because transfers
are made only for accepted names, and because synonymy is indicated for
all concerned names not transferred, we gain some insight into the taxonomic
concepts presumably to be employed in the authors' upcoming Flora mesoamericana
treatment. Myrsine calcarata (Lundell) Ricketson & Pipoly, one
of the two rectified combinations in Myrsine, is a Costa Rican element
not presently represented in the Manual database. At least seven of the
27 rectified combinations in Ardisia also pertain to Costa Rican
spp. unknown to us by these names [author citation as "(Lundell) Pipoly
& Ricketson" in each case]: Ardisia alajuelae, A. guanacastensis,
A. guinealensis, A. latisepala, A. monteverdeana, A.
triangula, and A. utleyi. The same can be said of at least five
of the nine rectified nomina nova (author citation as "Pipoly &
Ricketson" in each case): Ardisia albipedicellata, A. azaharensis,
A. dryeri (sic; must be corrected to "dryerae"),
A. parvidenticulata, and A. warneri. Ardisia mesoamericana
Pipoly & Ricketson nom. nov. is coined for Icacorea latisepala
Lundell, not previously transferred to Ardisia, in which the epithet
latisepala is preoccupied (see above). This sp. presumably occurs
in Costa Rica, because the type is from Cerro Echandi, "Panama"(but
on the international boundary).
Pruski, J. F. 1998. Compositae of the Guayana Highland--XIII. New
combinations in Conyza (Astereae), Praxelis (Eupatorieae),
and Riencourtia (Heliantheae) based on names proposed by L. C. M.
Richard. Brittonia 50: 473--482.
Pruski rocks us yet again. Now, the widespread weed known generally as
Conyza apurensis Kunth must instead be called C. laevigata
(Rich.) Pruski. The new combination is based on Erigeron laevigatus
Rich., here lectotypified.
Schatz, G. E. 1998. New species of Sapranthus B. C. Seemann
and Unonopsis R. E. Fries (Annonaceae) from Mesoamerica. Novon 8:
The impending publication of Doug Stevens's Flora de Nicaragua
yields more dividends for our Manual project. Sapranthus viridiflorus
G. E. Schatz, first recognized as distinct by its author at the Estación
Biológica La Selva 15 years ago, is now known by a large number of
collections from southeastern Nicaragua to central Panama (Península
de Azuero), including both slopes of Costa Rica. The new sp. is distinct
within the genus in its reduced flowers with green (rather than reddish
to deep purple) petals, without evident venation. These and other floral
differences are interpreted as paedomorphic adaptations to a wet forest
habitat, in a genus otherwise characteristic of Pacific dry forests. Unonopsis
stevensii G. E. Schatz, the other new sp. described here, is restricted
to the Barra del Colorado region of extreme northeastern Costa Rica. It
is compared with U. panamensis R. E. Fr., found on the Pacific slope
of Costa Rica and south to the Canal Area of Panama. Features generous
descriptions and exsiccatae citations. Both new spp. are illustrated with
black-and-white photos, and a URL is provided for accessing color photos
over the World Wide Web.
Whitehouse, C. 1998. (1375) Proposal to conserve the name Boerhavia
diffusa (Nyctaginaceae) with a conserved type. Taxon 47: 873--874.
Neither the lectotype nor any of the available alternatives correspond to
the prevailing usage of this well-known name, i.e., for a sp. with terminal,
paniculate inflorescences. Conservation with a new type embodying these
features is thus proposed. If this proposal is not recommended, the name
Boerhavia paniculata Rich will probably have to be taken up for the
sp. now called B. diffusa L., and the latter name will replace the
widely accepted B. coccinea Mill.
Zhang, X.-C. & H. P. Nooteboom. 1998. A taxonomic revision of
Plagiogyriaceae (Pteridophyta). Blumea 43: 401--469.
Plagiogyria, the only genus, is best represented in South and East
Asia, to which 10 of the 11 spp. accepted in this treatment are restricted.
All of the New World material is referred to a single sp., Plagiogyria
pectinata (Liebm.) Lellinger. The authors, with an Old World focus,
"refrain from evaluating the variation of the American Plagiogyria."
Given that admission, it is difficult to imagine how they might have formulated
any rational species concepts for the New World. Thus, we will continue
to follow the more critical regional treatment of D. B. Lellinger
(Flora mesoamericana 1: 84--85. 1995), which recognizes three Plagiogyria
spp. in the Mesoamerican region: P. pectinata, of Mexico and Guatemala;
P. costaricensis Mett. ex Kuhn, of Costa Rica and South America;
and P. semicordata (C. Presl) H. Christ, widespread throughout the
Neotropics. Keys (non-indented) to all spp. and vars., complete synonymy
and typology, generous descriptions, photographs of herbarium specimens
and SEM pollen micrographs, distribution maps, sections on hybrids and dubious
and excluded names, and indices to exsiccatae and scientific names. No
formal specimen citations.